| Summary: | Operating under the rubric of sport-for-development, nongovernmental organizations have mobilized sport activities as a tool for international development. Along with these initiatives, a scholarly analysis of the phenomenon has emerged. However, this body of research has not included analysis from a critical occupational perspective. This is a conspicuous shortcoming since, in the language of occupational science, sport-for-development initiatives are occupation-based programs.
This study explored sport-for-development using a critical occupational approach to research I constructed, wherein the central site of knowledge production was occupations used in sport-for-development programs. Through five case studies with sport-for-development organizations in Lusaka, Zambia, I describe how staff and youth participants spoke about and understood the use of sport occupations in sport-for-development programs and the sport-for-development ideologies and practices in Zambia and how these shaped the participation of youth. Data generation included observing program activities, interviewing participants, and analyzing organization documents.
The findings drew attention to the form, function, and meaning of the sport occupations used in sport-for-development, and illuminate that football, which is a heavily gendered and segregated sport, was constructed as the preferential activity for programs. This prioritization of football, in conjunction with a hierarchical, authoritative approach to decision making, and focus on the development of youths’ sports skills, led to athletic, non-disabled boys living in urban areas being the primary beneficiaries of the programs. I argue that the ideological beliefs that re/produced these understandings contributed to occupational injustices by (1) contributing to the practice of sport being used uncritically as an activity for all youth, (2) perpetuating what were considered acceptable activities for boys and girls in the local context to do, and (3) defining boys in opposition to girls, rural youth, poor youth, and youth with disabilities from both genders. Finally, I propose directions for institutionally-orientated actions to address occupational injustices and consideration of the wider uses and implications of a critical occupational approach within health and social research.
|
|---|
